I realize it's long standing practice for presidents to choose national party chairmen, but I'm wondering how procedurally this is done. Support for Dean's election bubbled up form the grassroots in opposition to the usual party power brokers, who were never entirely happy with Dean but active Democrats outside the DC beltway were enthused. Kaine seems a good choice, likely to continue the policies Dean pursued, but ti seems there should be more discussion first.

I am glad Obama's structure is rolling into the DNC, even if it's a takeover, because Obama won't be there forever, whereas the party needs a structure that can carry on the 50 state strategy long after Obama leaves office. Folding in Obama's campaign seems like an efficient way to do it.

On a side note, I heard Ken Blackwell say the Republicans have to stop running in just 28 states. I hoped we had more time before they figured that out.

The Fairness doctrine made sense when all TV and radio were sent over the air in a spectrum that limited the broadcast licenses, but it's hardly need now with cable and internet.

On the other hand, let's pretend we're going to shut down conservative talk radio (Air America will be granted a talk radio monopoly), but we'll stop if Republicans will join the fight against media consolidation. Maybe they would bust up Murdoch's empire to protect the base-driving lunatics.

4) Ironically, while I've been anti-authoritarian all my life, I've come to believe that existing democracies are NOT capable of solving the massive problems humanity now faces. Problems like Peak Oil and Climate Change have been ignored too long already to avoid severe consequences, and we still do effectively nothing to combat the problems.

The countries that have taken on these issues most seriously are in the European Union. The refusal to deal with these issues comes from the anti-democratic Bush administration and dictatorships like China. It appears ONLY democracies can cope with these problems or if they can't no one can. There's no point in hoping to replace corrupt authoritarians with better autocrats.

Something Burroughs didn't address is whether children of politicians are far more like inclined than average to run for public office. Maybe they see opportunities being opened by their relatives and their instant name recognition, but maybe there are other factors. Perhaps their parents inculcated the attitude that the children have grown up in privilege and have an obligation for public service. Perhaps there's a hereditary factor that makes some people more inclined for prominent jobs than others. Perhaps there's a comfort level with politics having been so close to it, like I'm guessing the children of lawyers are more likely than the average person to become a lawyer too.

For example, Al Franken's daughter was one of his primary surrogates. From what I could tell she took to like a duck to water. If she ran for something herself, would she just expect it to be handed to her because she's Franken's daughter? Or or else being equal, would she have an advantage over other first time candidates because she already knows how to run a campaign and has detailed knowledge of what worked and what was a mistake? It seems politician's children have a greater than average interest in politics --- that's anecdotal, my observation --- which would seem to increase the likelihood they would run for office themselves.

Maybe there just isn't a way to get around name recognition being an advantage, however it's acquired. Burroughs' comments on how it helps especially in primaries is why I'm glad Minnesota relies so heavily on caucuses. It's tough to buy a caucus.

In the linked clip, Stewart told Huckabee they have different understandings of what a homosexual is. Conservatives see homosexuals as people who inexplicably refuse to fight their urges. Doesn't everyone feel urges to sin? The what makes homosexuals different? Liberals see homosexuals as people who have choice because they're just built that way. Logically, if it's a choice, even if we have no intention of discriminating against someone, wouldn't we choose to be in the group that's not discriminated against? The science, even if inconclusive, sure seems to uphold the liberal view that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

I give credit to both of them for being able to explain their views civilly. Wrong as he is, Huckabee seems like a genuinely decent person. Stewart stays calm with people so noxious I wonder how he refrains from yelling. Seriously, I think he's the best political interviewer on TV.

I can accept the odds of accidents at nuclear plants are low enough to make nuclear worth the risk, and I can accept that we can solve the waste disposal problem. However, the planes that flew into the World Trade Center passed over the Indianpoint nuclear plant near New York City. Had the hijackers chosen to hit that instead of the office towers, they wouldn't have had the immediate deaths and spectacular disaster near lots of TV cameras, but they could have rendered the NYC metropolitan area uninhabitable for decades. This county felt disruption from the evacuation of just a million people from the Gulf Coast when Katrina hit. And there was some warning. What would it be like if New York, or some other large metropolitan area, had to be evacuated, and with no prior warning? How many deaths would there have been long term?

Can nuclear advocates tell me our plants, existing or planned, could withstand a jetliner crashing into them? Until they can answer yes, no way. They'll have to convince me nuclear is the only alternative to global warming.

"Fear of the next hijacker means fear of being alive. What if a hijacker hits my office building?"

So fine, I won't care if a hijacker hits your office building. I do care if he hits the nuclear power plant. A bit of difference in scale, don't you think?